California WCABOrder denying reconsideration

ADJ13224343 · May 27, 2022

DENIED

Issues decided: 2
Medical opinions weighed: 4
Authorities named: 1
District office: Salinas

What the panel ordered

DENIEDp. 9

Defendant 7-Eleven seeks reconsideration of WCJ's Joint Findings of Fact and Joint Order to Develop the Record of March 7, 2022

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

AOE/COEDefendant prevailedback

Applicant established by a preponderance of evidence that he sustained injury AOE/COE while working for 7-Eleven on or about 2/10/20

From the decision · page 7Holmes’ deposition statements regarding temporary disability and increased work restrictions that support Dr. Yoo’s opinion, the history obtained through the records reviewed, and the Applicant’s credible testimony, Applicant has established by a preponderance of evidence that he sustained injury AOE/COE while working for 7-Eleven on or about

Temporary disabilityDefendant prevailedback

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.

QMERelied upon

The event at 7-Eleven resulted in the applicant not being able to work and resulted in an increase in work restrictions; 7-Eleven carrier would have some liability for the worsening of his condition and inability to continue modified work

Dr. Holmes agreed that the event at 7-Eleven resulted in the applicant not being able to work and resulted in an increase in work restrictions

From the decision · page 6Holmes responded, “Because an incident occurred to his spine at 7-Eleven when he was working modified work from a previous injury, and that incident led to him not being able to work at all, off work, TTD, it appears to me that the 7-Eleven carrier would have some liability for that worsening of his condition and his inability to continue modified

PTPRelied upon

If not for the reinjury of his lower back, the applicant would have been able to continue to work under the restrictions previously provided

Dr. Yoo answered 'Yes' to the question whether applicant would have been able to continue working under restrictions if not for the 7-Eleven event

From the decision · page 4It is my professional medical opinion that if not for the reinjury of his lower back, the applicant would have been able to continue to work on there at the restrictions that I had previously provided.” (L.C.’S EX. L-14: Letter, Kevin Yoo, M.D., 4/27/20.)

AMENot reached

From the decision · page 2The cases were consolidated for receipt of evidence and ADJ13001359 was designated the master file for receipt of evidence, with the exception of the parties’ respective evaluators. Dr. Jeffrey Holmes acted as the QME in ADJ13224343 (7-Eleven), and Dr. Mark Anderson acted as the parties’ AME in ADJ13001359 (City of Santa Cruz.) (EAMS Doc ID:

otherNot reached

From the decision · page 3Thereafter, Applicant saw Dr. Amy Maher on 2/28/20, 3/2/20, 4/2/20, and 6/4/20. Dr. Maher placed Applicant on modified duty. (JOINT EX. J-2: QME Report, Jeffrey Holmes, M.D., 11/17/20, pp. 10-11, Record Review.) Applicant testified that he was off work from both jobs from 2/11/20 until July of 2020. (SOE, p.

ADJ13224343 · May 27, 2022

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page